Monday, June 27, 2011
Barty Crouch (junior and senior)
What do we think of a man who would condemn his son so as not to compromise his political career? Rowling portrays the court case as being rather rushed and ambiguous. Barty senior is portrayed as a rigid, cruelly ambitious man. We are by no means convinced of Barty juniors guilt. Then, the escape and use of an illegal curse to keep him quiet. The use of dementors, of course, is problematic. Is the rescue of Barty junior a commendable act of mercy? Or an act of betrayal? If we didn't find out that Barty junior is guilty later, what would we think of his father? Knowing that Barty junior is guilty, is Barty senior's fate justice or a tragedy?
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Veela
Monday, June 13, 2011
Concerning Dementors and Love
One word for you guys, "Demontors." They are so frigging sweet! Seriously, I love a creature that I can hate without reservations. So yes, let my ranting about Dementors commence.
First, while their appearance may by similar to certain riders from another great fantasy series, I believe they act in a completely different way. In HP, they suck all happiness from anybody they come in contact with. You cannot really get more evil than that? Furthermore, unlike he-who-must-not-be-named, the Dementors are "born that way." They are creatures that are not revealed to have a rational mind. And while most mindless creatures, werewolves, vampires, grindylows, etc., attack the body, Dementors directly attack the human soul. These things are absolutely brutal, they are as anti-human as one can get. One of the baddest bad guys I've encountered. Which leads me to my second point.
Why is the "good" magical community using them instead of destroying them? The only reason I can think of is that they act as an escape goat for Ministry to punish deadly criminals. The "killing curse" is totally forbidden (see book four), so the Dementors act as some form of capital punishment for the wizarding world. However, they inflict a punishment worse than death. Seriously Fudge!
On an unrelated note, I would like to share my favorite quote from the book. And yes, it is from Professor Dumblebore again:
“Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt...When one wizard saves another wizard’s life, it creates a certain bond between them...and I’m much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter.”
“I don’t want a connection with Pettigrew!” said Harry. “He betrayed my parents!”
“This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me...the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew’s life.”
"Magic at its deepest." Does anyone else harken back to Lewis when they read this? When I read this, I hear Rowling alluding to a mysterious realm of good magic that has tremendous power. Dumbledore names this "deep realm" of magic in the first book when Harry questions him about why Quirrell could not touch him. Dumblebore says,
"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good."
Am I reading into this too much, or is Rowling calling sacrificial love the deepest and most powerful magic in the wizarding world?
First, while their appearance may by similar to certain riders from another great fantasy series, I believe they act in a completely different way. In HP, they suck all happiness from anybody they come in contact with. You cannot really get more evil than that? Furthermore, unlike he-who-must-not-be-named, the Dementors are "born that way." They are creatures that are not revealed to have a rational mind. And while most mindless creatures, werewolves, vampires, grindylows, etc., attack the body, Dementors directly attack the human soul. These things are absolutely brutal, they are as anti-human as one can get. One of the baddest bad guys I've encountered. Which leads me to my second point.
Why is the "good" magical community using them instead of destroying them? The only reason I can think of is that they act as an escape goat for Ministry to punish deadly criminals. The "killing curse" is totally forbidden (see book four), so the Dementors act as some form of capital punishment for the wizarding world. However, they inflict a punishment worse than death. Seriously Fudge!
On an unrelated note, I would like to share my favorite quote from the book. And yes, it is from Professor Dumblebore again:
“Pettigrew owes his life to you. You have sent Voldemort a deputy who is in your debt...When one wizard saves another wizard’s life, it creates a certain bond between them...and I’m much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter.”
“I don’t want a connection with Pettigrew!” said Harry. “He betrayed my parents!”
“This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable, Harry. But trust me...the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew’s life.”
"Magic at its deepest." Does anyone else harken back to Lewis when they read this? When I read this, I hear Rowling alluding to a mysterious realm of good magic that has tremendous power. Dumbledore names this "deep realm" of magic in the first book when Harry questions him about why Quirrell could not touch him. Dumblebore says,
"Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scar, no visible sign... to have been loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good."
Am I reading into this too much, or is Rowling calling sacrificial love the deepest and most powerful magic in the wizarding world?
My Prisoner of Azkaban comments (um, spoilers, obviously)
Well, I've made no secret that this is my favorite of the series so I guess I should try and explain why. Keep in mind it's been a while since I've read this.
I really love the way the whole story is set up and how everything is turned on its head in the end. The ending in the shrieking shack is like the ending of a locked-room mystery where the detective is putting the pieces together for us. I don't know if I'd feel the same way about it if I first encountered it now, but all I can remember is getting to the end and having my 12-year-old mind blown away. Looking at it now, I feel that maybe the whole thing with scabbers being Ron's pet etc. is a little far-fetched, even for these books, but the outcome and the idea behind it is so clever that once again I can forgive Rowling for stretching my suspension of belief a bit. I thought the whole sequence with the time-turner was really cool (I love it when authors mess with time travelling). The fact that there are actually some deeper themes dealing with justice also I think brings this closer to my idea of classic children's lit, where complex subjects can be approached in children's stories.
Of course I'll admit that another big factor is that it features on of my favorite characters in the series, Lupin. I really love Harry's relationship with Lupin and the fact that Lupin is such a good person. In fact, I'm a sucker for the whole "good person in crap circumstances who still tries to be a good person" character type so that, plus the fact that he is a werewolf, pretty much sold me on his character. Also it was refreshing to see Harry with a competent role model. I was always disappointed that Black ended up being Harry's godfather because, even though the idea behind his character is pretty awesome, I never felt that Rowling proved that he was as awesome as we're supposed to think he is or that his relationship with Harry was particularly deep.
The dementors were a nice touch, although they reminded me a bit of Tolkien's black riders. The way Rowling gives us glimpses of Harry's past through his encounters with the dementors is really quite creative and the whole "Harry's greatest fear is fear" thing is maybe cliche but seemed impressive to me when I was younger. I loved the scene with the patronus at the end, my 12-year-old self wanted to scream at Harry when he's waiting for his dad to appear.
Karen: Glad you liked Lupin. Glad you liked the, backstory. And snape's character continues to improve in the books, trust me, it's worthy of Rickman's interpretation. I agree with you on Black, although I did otherwise enjoy that moment in the book. I would listen to a long story from Lupin at any time, and I really enjoyed the whole revelation of the shrieking shack etc. anyways so that never bothered me. If Lupin had told Harry about his relationship to his father, it would have ruined the grand finale. As for everything happening in the last 100 pages, well, I don't remember enough in detail to respond to that, but I do love the way the plot unfolds in this one, and I also love Dickens, so I guess we just have different tastes. ;P
Basically, for me the third book strikes a good balance between the short, fun and uncomplicated early books and the longer, more epic later ones. It's when things are starting to become more complicated and the story and characters are starting to develop, but before the novels become gigantic, wrist-breaking epics.
I really love the way the whole story is set up and how everything is turned on its head in the end. The ending in the shrieking shack is like the ending of a locked-room mystery where the detective is putting the pieces together for us. I don't know if I'd feel the same way about it if I first encountered it now, but all I can remember is getting to the end and having my 12-year-old mind blown away. Looking at it now, I feel that maybe the whole thing with scabbers being Ron's pet etc. is a little far-fetched, even for these books, but the outcome and the idea behind it is so clever that once again I can forgive Rowling for stretching my suspension of belief a bit. I thought the whole sequence with the time-turner was really cool (I love it when authors mess with time travelling). The fact that there are actually some deeper themes dealing with justice also I think brings this closer to my idea of classic children's lit, where complex subjects can be approached in children's stories.
Of course I'll admit that another big factor is that it features on of my favorite characters in the series, Lupin. I really love Harry's relationship with Lupin and the fact that Lupin is such a good person. In fact, I'm a sucker for the whole "good person in crap circumstances who still tries to be a good person" character type so that, plus the fact that he is a werewolf, pretty much sold me on his character. Also it was refreshing to see Harry with a competent role model. I was always disappointed that Black ended up being Harry's godfather because, even though the idea behind his character is pretty awesome, I never felt that Rowling proved that he was as awesome as we're supposed to think he is or that his relationship with Harry was particularly deep.
The dementors were a nice touch, although they reminded me a bit of Tolkien's black riders. The way Rowling gives us glimpses of Harry's past through his encounters with the dementors is really quite creative and the whole "Harry's greatest fear is fear" thing is maybe cliche but seemed impressive to me when I was younger. I loved the scene with the patronus at the end, my 12-year-old self wanted to scream at Harry when he's waiting for his dad to appear.
Karen: Glad you liked Lupin. Glad you liked the, backstory. And snape's character continues to improve in the books, trust me, it's worthy of Rickman's interpretation. I agree with you on Black, although I did otherwise enjoy that moment in the book. I would listen to a long story from Lupin at any time, and I really enjoyed the whole revelation of the shrieking shack etc. anyways so that never bothered me. If Lupin had told Harry about his relationship to his father, it would have ruined the grand finale. As for everything happening in the last 100 pages, well, I don't remember enough in detail to respond to that, but I do love the way the plot unfolds in this one, and I also love Dickens, so I guess we just have different tastes. ;P
Basically, for me the third book strikes a good balance between the short, fun and uncomplicated early books and the longer, more epic later ones. It's when things are starting to become more complicated and the story and characters are starting to develop, but before the novels become gigantic, wrist-breaking epics.
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Cool points
Cool points for Harry Potter book three:
Uncool points:
- Lupin is a werewolf
- The whole set up with James Potters three friends and Snape.
- Snape isn't such a jerk, see! He makes a nice potion for Lupin. He would probably like to make a different one, but he is being kind and helpful. Okay, my soft spot for Snape is entirely based on my soft spot for Allen Rickman. I think he made Snape way better than Rowling wrote him.
Uncool points:
- The way Black treats Snape (I know, little things bother me) when he is unconscious. Is there no basic level of courtesy and respect with which all good Wizards treat each other no matter what?
- Forty pages of explanation in the Shrieking Shack. It was all important information, but it would have been better if it had come out at some less dramatic moment. I wouldn't have stopped to listen to a long story from Lupin just then, would you?
- Come to think of it, why didn't Lupin tell Harry more about his relationship to his father earlier?
- Further, how come all the cool things happen in the last hundred pages of the book. It's like the first two thirds of the book were bunny trails. It's rather like a Dickens novel that way... I rather dislike Dickens.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Choices
Well, I think my summer reading will be just like my class reading, perpetually one book behind.
I believe this passage may have come up before on this blog, however, it is still my favorite.
"Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand- picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think."
"It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "because I asked not to go in Slytherin . . . ."
"Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
When I first read this book, I never really paid much attention to this statement by Dumbledore. The climatic fight with the snake was over, and I just dismissed this part as some more wise words by the good professor. However, when I read it this time I was drawn to this quote, particularly the sentence about choices because it reminded me of C.S. Lewis. In one of his many works, I unfortunately forget which one (help me out Zita?), Lewis expresses the idea that by one's choices, a man can become a more heavenish or hellish creature. This idea is also expressed in one of his letters, Lewis says, "But though freedom is real it is not infinite. Every choice reduces a little one’s freedom to choose the next time. There therefore comes a time when the creature is fully built, irrevocably attached either to God or to itself." In Rowling's world, the irrevocable attachment to good and evil is most clearly seen in the last two books. There is shows that Riddle is willing to murder anyone to stay alive (attachment to himself), and that Harry is willing to die for the lives of others (attachment to the Good). These ultimate expression of good and evil didn't just happen. Neither Potter nor Riddle were "born this way." Furthermore, since they both had miserable experiences as a child, neither of them can completely blame their upbringing. They are responsible for their own actions. Riddle is evil because throughout his life he consistently chose to place himself above others, and Potter is good because he consistently chooses to sacrifice his wellbeing for the wellbeing of others. I really appreciate that this idea is expressed in a simple and non-religious manner to a society that is quick to blame its faults on genes, parents, and the weather. I will be keeping track of this theme as I continue to read.
Anyways, the moral of the book is to not allow your daughter to talk with unknown strangers on Facebook…I mean, in magical diaries…otherwise she may end up releasing a giant snake on innocent Mudbloods.
I believe this passage may have come up before on this blog, however, it is still my favorite.
"Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand- picked students. His own very rare gift, Parseltongue - resourcefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules," he added, his mustache quivering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think."
"It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "because I asked not to go in Slytherin . . . ."
"Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
When I first read this book, I never really paid much attention to this statement by Dumbledore. The climatic fight with the snake was over, and I just dismissed this part as some more wise words by the good professor. However, when I read it this time I was drawn to this quote, particularly the sentence about choices because it reminded me of C.S. Lewis. In one of his many works, I unfortunately forget which one (help me out Zita?), Lewis expresses the idea that by one's choices, a man can become a more heavenish or hellish creature. This idea is also expressed in one of his letters, Lewis says, "But though freedom is real it is not infinite. Every choice reduces a little one’s freedom to choose the next time. There therefore comes a time when the creature is fully built, irrevocably attached either to God or to itself." In Rowling's world, the irrevocable attachment to good and evil is most clearly seen in the last two books. There is shows that Riddle is willing to murder anyone to stay alive (attachment to himself), and that Harry is willing to die for the lives of others (attachment to the Good). These ultimate expression of good and evil didn't just happen. Neither Potter nor Riddle were "born this way." Furthermore, since they both had miserable experiences as a child, neither of them can completely blame their upbringing. They are responsible for their own actions. Riddle is evil because throughout his life he consistently chose to place himself above others, and Potter is good because he consistently chooses to sacrifice his wellbeing for the wellbeing of others. I really appreciate that this idea is expressed in a simple and non-religious manner to a society that is quick to blame its faults on genes, parents, and the weather. I will be keeping track of this theme as I continue to read.
Anyways, the moral of the book is to not allow your daughter to talk with unknown strangers on Facebook…I mean, in magical diaries…otherwise she may end up releasing a giant snake on innocent Mudbloods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)